The Global Warming Plateau

[waldo]

Any reasonably informed person knows that the latest Climate change cycle has seen the world warming since 1850 or so.

any climate change must have a physical basis. What say you... what's your latest physical basis causal tie? You clearly didn't fare well with your internal/natural variability 30-year cyclical nonsense. Any new trix?

[Michael Hardner]

Skeptics are simply that - skeptical of that particular claim - that's really all that skepticism has ever been about - how much humans actually affect Climate Change or the amount of warming. With nothing but computer models that now admittedly leave much to be desired - and observations that obliterate many Alarmist predictions - skepticism is rightfully increasing.

My reaction to your post is incredulity, mixed with satisfaction. I'm surprised to hear you and others state that skepticism is not denial of climate change, and relieved that the argument actually appears to have moved on.

As for 'computer models', we're really talking about linear regression here - which is a mathematical modelling tool that can be done without computers.

[TimG]

I'm surprised to hear you and others state that skepticism is not denial of climate change, and relieved that the argument actually appears to have moved on.

The only thing that has changed is you are now listening to what skeptics are actually saying instead of blindly accepting the strawmen constructed by alarmists and spread in the media. I am glad that your arguments have moved on we can discuss the issues instead of phony strawmen.

As for 'computer models', we're really talking about linear regression here - which is a mathematical modelling tool that can be done without computers.

The big question that we need answered is: "is warming a net harm or benefit?" The only tool we have to answer that question are climate models, however, these models are clearly junk because they were unable to predict the slowdown/pause in warming in the last 15 years. This means we have no useful information about what the consequences of warming are likely to be and must take that into account when we discuss policies. Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

The only thing that has changed is you are now listening to what skeptics are actually saying instead of blindly accepting the strawmen constructed by alarmists and spread in the media. I am glad that your arguments have moved on we can discuss the issues instead of phony strawmen.

ya ya... step-up and qualify your "actually saying"... as you say, "discuss the issues"! Let me give the following from a few posts back another try, hey!

- what "crap" do you claim has been made up about, as you say, "what skeptics think"?

- what "skeptic arguments" have not been, as you say, "listened to"?

[waldo]

The big question that we need answered is: "is warming a net harm or benefit?" The only tool we have to answer that question are climate models, however, these models are clearly junk because they were unable to predict the slowdown/pause in warming in the last 15 years. This means we have no useful information about what the consequences of warming are likely to be and must take that into account when we discuss policies.

no - there has been no slowdown/pause in warming... again, relative to the previous decade, what there has been is a reduced rate of warming only in surface temperature warming. Again, ocean warming has increased/accelerated during the same period. It's called GLOBAL warming! Clearly, your preferred denier narrative takes a most selective, most isolated view of what constitutes the GLOBE.

as I've stated in the past, in this very thread (many times over now), considerable study is focused on just why the rate of surface warming has reduced in relation to the previous decade. One of those areas of study is focused on the influence of an untypical, disproportionate number of La Nina years during this period. As I said, as I'll say again: how is it that "fake skeptics/deniers" so vociferously trot out the natural variability influence card over the relatively recent past, and yet... and yet... presume to totally ignore the impact a greater number (from the norm) of La Nina years might have on reducing the rate of surface temperature warming. Why, that seems like a most self-serving approach for someone, for anyone... claiming to be a "true skeptic"!

[waldo]

My reaction to your post is incredulity, mixed with satisfaction. I'm surprised to hear you and others state that skepticism is not denial of climate change, and relieved that the argument actually appears to have moved on.

Simple's talk is cheap. How do you rationalize your (apparent) accepting of his "claimed skepticism"... distinct from and balanced against his most prolific and overt MLW history of outright denial... balanced against his immediately prior post that saw him blindly link to a National Post article that simply, without any critical review/commentary, repeated recent misinformation from a British tabloid serial denier "journalist".

[GostHacked]

no - there has been no slowdown/pause in warming... again, relative to the previous decade, what there has been is a reduced rate of warming only in surface temperature warming. Again, ocean warming has increased/accelerated during the same period. It's called GLOBAL warming! Clearly, your preferred denier narrative takes a most selective, most isolated view of what constitutes the GLOBE.

So no slow down of warming, but you are saying there has been a reduced rate of warming, which would mean a slow down in warming.

[waldo]

So no slow down of warming, but you are saying there has been a reduced rate of warming, which would mean a slow down in warming.

read it again... take your isolation blinders off surface temperature and pay attention to the all-CAPS emphasis!

Edited October 12, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

And you deny we're doing enough to mitigate the problem. We're both deniers!

The problem with you is evidence selection. The evidence suggests that the climate is changing, and we are affecting it. It also suggests we can't get our act together to have any success in lowering greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. How come you just believe the one?

I have a long MLW history of pointed, at large, and nation level targeting of both failed and promising mitigation initiatives/results.

Actually, the more I think about it, you're the real denier.

based on your defeatist, 'throwing in the towel', expressions, I think it's necessary to bump you right to the self-fulfilling end stage of denial:

[TimG]

So no slow down of warming, but you are saying there has been a reduced rate of warming, which would mean a slow down in warming.

ROTFL - classic waldo. A skeptic could say the sky is blue and waldo would insist it is purple because the cognitive dissonance that comes from agreeing with skeptic would cause his world to collapse. Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

I have a long MLW history of pointed, at large, and nation level targeting of both failed and promising mitigation initiatives/results.

based on your defeatist, 'throwing in the towel', expressions, I think it's necessary to bump you right to the self-fulfilling end stage of denial:

It's true I'm still using incandescent light bulbs. I have a closet full of them.

[Moonlight Graham]

read it again... take your isolation blinders off surface temperature and pay attention to the all-CAPS emphasis!

You have a source link for that chart? I really can't stand it when so many people and sources post climate graphs and charts etc. without sourcing the darn stuff. They even do it on Wikipedia constantly.

[Michael Hardner]

Simple's talk is cheap. How do you rationalize your (apparent) accepting of his "claimed skepticism"... distinct from and balanced against his most prolific and overt MLW history of outright denial... balanced against his immediately prior post that saw him blindly link to a National Post article that simply, without any critical review/commentary, repeated recent misinformation from a British tabloid serial denier "journalist".

I don't parse these things so carefully. It seems that KiS may disagree with some aspects of the article ?

[Keepitsimple]

I don't parse these things so carefully. It seems that KiS may disagree with some aspects of the article ?

Michael - regardless of Waldo's rantings, my position has always been crystal clear - same as many people who treat the issue seriously....Climate Change has been with us since the beginning, GHG's can affect the climate - but we (the skeptics) dispute how much influence human caused GHG's have on Climate Change - 10%?, 25%, 50%? or as the alarmists would have you believe, in excess of 50%. It's a pretty clear position - yet in Waldo World, such a position amounts to either blasphemy or stupidity. In fact, in view of historical and current-day observations (Roman times, Midieval warming period, today's 17 years of "a warming plateau", no hot-spot, Antarctic growing etc.) - it's a reasonable and pragmatic position - certainly not one to be ridiculed.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

Michael - regardless of Waldo's rantings, my position has always been crystal clear -

You missed the point - do you publish links for people who don't even acknowledge that warming is happening ?

[bush_cheney2004]

... In fact, in view of historical and current-day observations (Roman times, Midieval warming period, today's 17 years of "a warming plateau", no hot-spot, Antarctic growing etc.) - it's a reasonable and pragmatic position - certainly not one to be ridiculed.

Agreed...it is the singular and monolithic "anthropogenic" point of view that is out of step and lacking diverse opinion. The alarmists and warmies are most inflexible in this regard. Fortunately, their own "data" has turned against their carbon killing crusade.

[TimG]

You missed the point - do you publish links for people who don't even acknowledge that warming is happening ?

So what? There are many people out there looking at the publicly available data. These people often publish graphs or representations of the data which are useful in a climate discussion. Simply linking to a source has never implied that one agrees with every opinion of that source.

Frankly, waldo's tactic of spewing ad homs at a source instead of actually addressing the argument made in the post is pathetic and one of the reasons why I ignore him. People interested in having a honest debate address the arguments made and don't resort to ad homs.

Edited October 13, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

So what? There are many people out there looking at the publicly available data. These people often publish graphs or representations of the data which are useful in a climate discussion. Simply linking to a source has never implied that one agrees with every opinion of that source.

Yes, but this isn't what Waldo says happened. But, I have already explained that I'm not parsing here - I was responding to KiS who jumped in on my reply to Waldo but, didn't address the point ...

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, but this isn't what Waldo says happened. But, I have already explained that I'm not parsing here - I was responding to KiS who jumped in on my reply to Waldo but, didn't address the point ...

Not really sure what the point is......I'm not really aware of any source who denies Climate Change - if there was such a source - I wouldn't pay any attention to it because it's a ludicrous position. There HAVE been articles that I've used that point out the almost total lack of any warming over the last 15 or more years. So if Waldo said something to the contrary (I still have him on Ignore) he's just desperately trying to cling to his "fake skepticism" silliness.

[waldo]

ROTFL - classic waldo. A skeptic could say the sky is blue and waldo would insist it is purple because the cognitive dissonance that comes from agreeing with skeptic would cause his world to collapse.

classic TimG!... having a chuckle-fest over MLW member GostHacked's comprehension fail!

[waldo]

I don't parse these things so carefully. It seems that KiS may disagree with some aspects of the article ?

no - MLW poster Simple quoted directly from the article... a most pointed and selective extract from the article... most selective in that he included everything but the attribution for his quote. Somehow, Simple chose not to include the sentence within the article, the article sentence directly preceding his quote extract... the sentence that identifies his quote as being attributed to serial misinformation denier, the notorious 'David Rose' of a British tabloid newspaper. That was purposeful... that was classic Simple!

I took the very first claim within Simple's quote and showed it to be crap... standard David Rose crap. I could do the same for every other reference/claim within the Simple quote.

[waldo]

...my position has always been crystal clear - same as many people who treat the issue seriously....Climate Change has been with us since the beginning, GHG's can affect the climate - but we (the skeptics) dispute how much influence human caused GHG's have on Climate Change - 10%?, 25%, 50%? or as the alarmists would have you believe, in excess of 50%.

you can't even be true to your own long-standing MLW posting history! What do you treat seriously in this regard?

was your "seriousness" displayed with your incessant parroting of your favoured TV weathermen Watts/Coleman, calling into question the surface temperature record, calling into question the work/scientists within NASA, NOAA, NCDC, etc. Was that you being serious? Was your "seriousness" displayed when you continued to claim over and over and over again, that the world was cooling - yes... cooling! Was that you being serious? Was your "seriousness" displayed when you continued to question any correlation between temperature and CO2? Was that you being serious? Was your "seriousness" displayed when you continued to trot out your repeated nonsense over CO2 residence times? Was that you being serious? Was your "seriousness" displayed when you repeated, ad nauseum, your claim that observed temperatures simply reflected upon a natural 30-year cyclical pattern? Was that you being serious? Was your "seriousness" displayed when you claimed today's observations were no different than 1940s era observations? Was that you being serious? Etc., etc., etc........ I, quite literally, could go on like this for dozens more examples of your claimed "seriousness".

out of all your "seriousness", you have never been able to support a single thing you've ever claimed. Not one - ever! Seriously! Have you ever been able to bring forward a legitimate skeptic position that speaks to an alternate principal causal tie attribution for today's warming, one other than anthropogenic sourced? No, you haven't... not one - ever! Seriously!

[bleeding heart]

MLW member 'Michael Hardner' was recently on the firing end of your previous "no clue" labeling... and now, your sights have hit MLW member 'dre'. Apparently, not agreeing with you has consequences!

.

It's not a particularly exclusive club, but one with respectable membership nonetheless.

[waldo]

There HAVE been articles that I've used that point out the almost total lack of any warming over the last 15 or more years.

Simple! You were ahead of the curve! You were speaking of the "pause" before it became the denier 'cause celebre'. Of course, that ocean warming thingee, that total energy transfer stuff, none of that ever entered into your claimed "seriousness"!

but let me add to my prior posts summary collective on your claimed "seriousness". Let me add your ongoing attempt to support your global cooling nonsense. This is where the waldo finally got you to climb-down from your parroting of the global cooling meme... just a bit, just a lil' climb-down for you! This is where you went on and on about an "Arctic warming anomaly"... that only the Arctic was warming... everywhere else was/is cooling! It was quite disconcerting to interpret your plaintive whine, ala a pharaphrase, "if only we ignore the Arctic, you'll see I was right about global cooling"!!!

[waldo]

Simply linking to a source has never implied that one agrees with every opinion of that source.

Frankly, waldo's tactic of spewing ad homs at a source instead of actually addressing the argument made in the post is pathetic and one of the reasons why I ignore him. People interested in having a honest debate address the arguments made and don't resort to ad homs.

no - what Simple did was link to an article and quote, verbatim, statements/claims attributed to a denier journalist. What simple didn't do is properly include the article's own attribution to that denier journalist. The Simple agreement to/with the source (unattributed by Simple), is Simple most selectively extracting and quoting the statements/claims. A very purposeful extract, a very purposeful quotation.

I did address the quote... I ripped the very first claim within the quote. And, again, I could have done the same for the rest of the crap within the quote.

I appreciate your discomfort with my highlighting one of your, apparently, favoured serial purveyors of misinformation!